The film revolves around the theme of the US war on terrorism and talks about the different attitudes of politicians, the military, the news media, intellectuals, and ordinary people. There are many areas for reflection.
I sorted out some inspirations to prevent me from forgetting:
First of all, the role of the news media is related to work, so it resonates very well. The ugly politician said a lot of high-sounding words, only a few words from the media that were right to the point. In other words, the reason why various bad policies such as the initiation of war are often passed with high public opinion at the earliest is often created by politicians and the media together. In order for politicians to climb to a higher position, and the media to create greater excitement, the two combine to make the tide rise. The media nowadays don’t believe in independent thinking anymore. What they call “objectivity” refers to presenting all the facts they get and even the interviewee voluntarily sent to them without judgment. Even if there is a position, whoever praises or degrades will follow. The hot spots and public opinion created.
It is common for politicians to deny their earlier propositions in the later stages, admit their mistakes to the public and rush to publicize new policies. Such politicians are certainly hateful, but as for the media, they have also contributed to the situation, but they have never apologized for their misleading. When will it be the media's turn to reflect on the self? When will the media become an objective and independent thinking force again?
It seems that these words are the same old tunes, but they are not easy to know when they are put into specific matters. Can you maintain your relatively calm judgment in the hustle and bustle of the whole people, can you stick to your original position when the whole people are complaining and reflecting again? When others take the initiative to provide you with information, do you follow their information or do not hesitate to follow him? He has since lost the source of the interview. When business pressure, the wishes of the boss, or the good reputation he has accumulated over the years have prevented him from publishing his true ideas, can you persist... It
may be difficult to be a sober and independent media, but We should work hard to be a sober and independent media person.
The other question is about social participation. The professor in the film puts forward a point that I have not summarized but deeply agree with: Every time in war, sacrifices for the country are always a group of people who are usually forgotten by the country. Those who are superior who occupy social resources all regard escaping from social reality as their life criterion.
In fact, it is not only about war, but also many things. We have seen the donors of the earthquake disaster, which also confirms this conclusion: in terms of the proportion of donations to personal savings, the most donated are often migrant workers, retired elderly, farmers and other groups, while urban elites who enjoy various policy preferences, Although the number of donations is large, the proportion of personal savings is far lower than the crowd mentioned above.
Regarding the U.S. war on terrorism, it can be explained as follows: Those who volunteer to serve in the military are often mostly ethnic minorities and poor people. They are deprived of all kinds on weekdays and faced with unfair inclination under various policies, but they are willing to pass. Joining the army, participating in politics, etc., make efforts to change the unfair status quo in this country, and at the same time change oneself in the process, and get the only fairness. Those who have the advantage of going to school and employment, while complaining about the government's terrible corruption, while taking a detour to concentrate on running their own small days.
The idea of the students in the film is also the idea of most young people, including me. The corrupt and incompetent government has nothing to do with me. I don't want to disturb this muddy water. I just need to live my life and do what I like. What's wrong with the pursuit of happiness?
But the professor said that those politicians are hoping that you elites will leave it alone, so that they can act boldly without being restrained. In the end, the government gets worse and worse, and the status quo in society is getting worse and worse. The elites just think about how to ensure that their own interests are not violated.
Reality, the important thing is reality, the important thing is to participate in it and change it, rather than complaining every day. What about owning a car mansion? When you have a car but find that gasoline is too expensive to buy, when you have a house but find that public transportation has been paralyzed, what is the point of everything you have? You don’t have to join the army and politics. The important thing is to step into reality and make efforts, not escape.
This is in fact consistent with the above-mentioned reflection on the media, that is, everyone should play their role as a citizen and do their duty within their abilities to improve the world. Maybe the results of hard work and no hard work are the same, but at least you have tried.
For example, a professor, he thought that being a scholar would wake up more people, but found that no one actually cared about his research conclusions. What students care about is grades and whereabouts after graduation, and his name is always misspelled in school. However, at least he can enlighten a few talented students, who will have a positive impact on the country through personal efforts, that's enough.
Just like the two students who died on the top of the snow mountain in Afghanistan, what a beautiful and powerful ambition they had. It is a pity that when the leaders of the army do not understand the military and all military operations are used as gambling chips for politicians, they become inevitable victims. But they have worked hard. If they survive, they will be able to change everything slowly. If no one participates, there will be no chance for change.
The only weak portrayal in the film is the politician played by Brother Tom. He is talkative and high-sounding enough, but the image is too single. So I still can’t understand why politicians can come up with conclusions that sound absurd and untrustworthy. They are not fools. They are not as low as IQ. There should be more complex and three-dimensional shaping, so that we can understand the law that the ass determines the head: A person can have a completely different opinion and speech just because he sits in a position.
View more about Lions for Lambs reviews
